Religion of Peace? One-Stop Shopping For War on Terror News

I got no beef with the Army killin people and breakin things. The problem here is that if you lie to people, they tend to get a little hysterical when they find out the truth. Especially us journalists.

More worrying than the effect on journalists' emotional stability (ahem!) is the effect on U.S. credibility - how do we now believe the denials that it was used on civilians? Will those be recanted in a few months too?

I have no opinion on the effects of white phosphorous, and I believe the flak who says it's not a chemical weapon or a banned substance. But then why deny that it was used? And why wait so long to correct the error? I'm willing to accept incompetence as the answer, but hey, don't be so surprised by all the fuss. Get a little perspective.

Hi Lib. . .

I agree with you when we pull back our focus and look from that angle. The Army should have been forthright from the beginning about the Willie Pete.

Let's pull it back a further step, however. The media has put the Army on trial every step of the way to an asinine degree. No other war has ever had to be fought with this ridiculous and self-important level of scrutiny from the press. Try to imagine WWII being fought in similar fashion. The Army should never have had to answer the WP question to begin with.

Sigh. I have to agree with The Liberal Media. This is not cool for so many reasons. Lying being the first, as pointed out above. Lying to the public is not a way to foster trust or confidence.

Unlike The Liberal Media, I don't believe white phosphorous is not a chemical weapon or a banned substance. While The Liberal Media choose to 'believe,' even if it is with a noted tone of scepticism, I am not that confident. I am way too used to hearing justifications first and the real story of untold damage, lies, and abuse come out later. Lie once and credibility is gone.

I will continue be shocked and dismayed, not because the army is not delivering soup, but because the powers that be cannot use integrity and honesty in war. They hypocritically berate the terrorists for their stockpiling of chemical weapons and the like, while they are not stockpiling but using these weapons themselves. And this perhaps on civilians…?

for more info check out this site:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/9/164137/436

As for answering the WP question, again it goes to integrity and trust. Why should the public be expected to support anything without having access to all the information?

Hi Miss,

"I don't believe white phosphorous is not a chemical weapon or a banned substance."

And that's the reality of things. You're going to believe what you want to. It's all the same to me, honestly. Firstly, because I truly doubt you knew what a white phosphorous round was until two days ago.

Secondly, I'm putting out my opinion here on this blog, but I'm not emotionally invested in people's reactions. In the final analysis, the fate of the 25 million Iraqis is in the hands of God and the US government. Whether or not we cut and run, leaving them to fall into the hands of insurgents and the Iranian mullahs, is not my call. I served my time. My role is now confined to bloggage. :)

Also, I'm very happy for you to share links and thoughts. DDaily Kos, however, is so far out on the moonba fringes that I'm going to have trouble giving credence to anything he writes. Especially given how many times I've watched him manipulate the truth along the way. . .